read_note

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful traits: locked notes are refused (error behavior) and formatting, checklists, and attachments are excluded from the result. It omits auth requirements and return shape details, keeping it out of the top band.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with zero filler — the core action comes first, followed by the key constraint and scope limits.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-param read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential constraints (locked refusal, plain-text-only scope). Only minor gaps remain around error detail and authentication.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0% for the single 'id' parameter, so the description must compensate; 'by id' is the only added meaning, which matches the already-named schema field. Adequate for a trivially-named single param but adds little.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource ('Read the plain text of one note by id'), and the singular 'one note' implicitly separates it from list_notes. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, so it falls just short of the top band.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by 'by id' — an agent infers this is for retrieving a single known note versus listing — but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative such as list_notes.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.